K. lndra lvlohan v. 1. Union of lndia

3. The brief facts leading to Iiiing of the present Writ Petition are as follows

4. The respondent No.2/Bank issued an c-aLrction Sale Notice on

05.12.2022 all.d O4.O2.2O23 fixing lhe date of the auction on

23.O2.2023. The respondent No.3/Guarantor filed S.A.No.5U of 2023 bcfore the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, at Hydcrabad('DRT) challenged the c-auction sale Notice dated O5.12.2022 rvherc the DR'l passcd a docket order dated 17.O2.2O25 granting a conditional stay of confirmation of sale directing the tsank to proceed with the auction but not to confirm the salc in iavour of the highest bidder in pursuance to e-auction sale notice dated 05.12.2O22. However, the auction scheduled on 23.O2.2023 did not materialize . On

24.O2.2023, the Bank invoked the provisions of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2OO2 ('SARFAESI Act') by issuing a fresh e-auction sale Notice fixing the date of auction on 14.03.2023. The writ petitioner participated in the auction and his offer of Rs.8,65,OO,OO0/- for purchase of subject property was declared a highest bid and accordingly the petitioner a H1 bidder by an email dated 14.O3.2O23 which also mentioned that sale is subject to outcome of pending SA ) ) \ \ 3 MB,J&GPI<,J w.P.No.1453O of 2O25 bcfore the DRT. The Bank again informed the petitior-rer by a letter dated 15.O3.2O23 that the petitioner's offer was accepted and sale is confirmed but the sale is subject to the outcome of S.A.No.58 of 2023 pending before the DRT and aiso the petitioner making the balance 757o payment of the bid amount within 15 da5rs- i.e.. on or before

29.03.2023 or else Lhe 25o/o amount paid by the petitioner i.e., Rs.2,16,25,OOO/- shall be forfeited and Bank will proceed further for auction u'ithout further noticc to petitioner.

5. 1'he petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.2,16,25,000/ - on

15.03.2023 towards 25ok ol the sale consideration including the earnest money cleposit. The Guarantor hled W.P.No.7533 of 2023 on

16.03.2023 challenging the e-auction sale Notice dated 24.O2.2O23. By a Co-ordinate Bench order of this Court, the Bank was directed not to confirm Lhe sale in favour of the auction purchaser until further ordcrs of the DRT. Thc said Writ Petition was disposed o[ on 2O.O3.2O23 bv granting liberty to the respondent No.3/Guarantor to pursue the pending S.A.No.58 of 2023 before the DRl'. The Court also madc it clear that they have not expressed any opinion on the conditional order passed by the DRT.

6. On 3l.O:1.2023, the respondent No.3/Guarantor sought extension of tinre to pay the balance amount of which Rs. 1 crore towards 2"d instalment which was to be deposited as per the orders I I 4 MB,.T&GPK,J W.P.No.14530 oJ 2O25 .) r) passed by the DRT in I.A.No.303 of 2023 in S.A.No.SS of 2023 on

17.O2.2O23. On 21.O4.2O23 through an e-mail, the Bank informed the petitioner that the Guarantor was granted extension of the time tlll 15.O4.2023 by the Tribunal for payment of the second instalment uid.e order dated 31.03.2023 and the said order was not in Bank's knowledge and the Guarantor has complied with the said order by depositing the Demand Draft for Rs. 1 crore on 12.04.2023. The writ petitioner addressed a letter to the Bank on 28.03 .2023 through an email to update the petitioner about the transfer of propcrty and requested the Bank to refund a part of the amount or total amount paid. The petitioner assured to re-deposit the amount w,hen the Bank is entitled to transfer the property on his name.

7. The petitioner lurther requested the Bank to exlend thc Lime for at least 15 days for depositing the balance amount in casc the legal issues are sorted and the Bank had right to . transfer and register property in his name. In the letter, on I8.O4.2O23 the Bank considered the request and extended the time till 28.04.2023. On

31.05.2023, the respondent No.2/Bank sent an e-mail to the petitioner to pay the balance 7 Sok of the sale consideration immediately failing which the 25Vo of the sale consideration deposited by the petitioner would be forfeited, Bank is at liberty to conduct the auction for subject property afresh. The Bank issued a letter to the petitioner on 73.06.2023 that he failed to pay sale ( ( \ L J MB,J&CPK,J W.P.No.74530 of 2O25 consideration in time hence Bank was forfeiting the 23o/o of the sale consideration. The present Writ Petition was flled on O 1.O5.2025 challenging the letter dated 13.06.2O23 8- l-earnet'l Senior Counsel appearing for the petil ioner/ auction purchaser submits that the respondeilt No.2/Bank lailed to act in a bona fide marlner it was incumbent on the respondent No.2/Bank to inform the fact of any pending titigation of the secured asset to the petitioner. Counsel submits that thc sale notice dated 24.02.2023 failed to disclose the pendency of S.A.No.58 of 2023 filed by the Guarantor belore the DRT as well as the conditional stay obtained by thc Guarantor ctn 17.O2.2023. Counsel rclied on the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this court on 20.o3.2023 in w.P.No.7533 0f 2023 filed by the Ciuarantor rvhei'eb1r the Bank was directed not to proceed in terms of confirming the salc in favour of the successful auction purchaser until further orders passed by the DRT.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/Bank urges Lhat the Writ Petition is devoid of merit as there was no stay in respect of the impugned auction proccedings. It is further submitted that the action of the Bank in forleiting th^e 25ok of the sale consideration was within the statutory powers under Rule 9(5) of The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2. lt is submitted that the I / l j I 6 a\ MB,J&GPK,J w.P.No.14530 of 2O25 petitioner has an alternative remedy under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

10. karned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/Guarantor submits that the petition is not maintaina.ble sincc there are several disputed facts raised by the petitioner which cannot be gone into by a Writ Court. Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/Guarantor submits that the pe titioner/Auction Purchaser was well aware of the pending proccedings before the DRT of but nonetheless took a chance in filing the Writ Petition. Counsel relies on the caveat communicatcd by the Bank stating that the auction would be subjected to the outcome oi the S.A. which is pending before the DRT.

11. We have heard learned Scnior Counsel/counsel appearing for the parties and have considered the material placed before us.

12. The basic premise on which the petitioner has approached this Court is whethcr the respondent No.2-Bank compelled the petitioner to deposit part-consideration of the secured asset on incomplete information, that is, by faiiing to disciose the pending proceedings in relation thereto. While the petitioner reiterates that the petitioner was kept in the dark, the stand of the respondent No.2-Bank as well as the respondent No.3/guarantor is that the petitioner was aware of the relevant particulars with regard to the secured asset despite I t \ i 7 MB,J&GPK,J w.P.No.1453O of 2O25 which the petitioncr chose to deposit 25oh of the sale price at his own risk and consequence.

13. The folkrrving timclinc would be rclevanl for deciding whelher the petitioner is entitled to a direction on the Bank to accept the balance sale ccnsidcration or alternatively, refund thc forfeited 2570 that u,as alreadv paid to the Bank by the petitioner. 14, On 14.03.2023, the Bank sent an e-mail to the petitioner stating that the petitioner has bEen declzrrcd thc II1 (highest) bidder of the subject property whilc mentioning that'the sale is subject to outcome of S.A.I{o.58 of 2023 pending before the l)ebts Recouery Tibunal- 1, Hyderabad'. On the following day, i.e., 15.03.2O23, the Bank again wrote to the petitioner through a letter stating that the petitioner's offer ol Rs.8,65,00,OOO/ - for purchase of the subject property/asset mentioncd during the e-auction held on 14.O3.2O23 was accepted and the sale was conhrmed subiect to certain terms and conditions. The third condition of said letter mentions that the petitioner had already 'remitted EITID for Rs.B5,OO,000/ - through MSTC website and deposited an amount of Rs.1,31,25,0OO,/- through RIGS on 24.02.2023 totuards 25o/o of th.e sale consideration which came to Rs.2,16,25,OO0/ - . Th.e seventh condition in the said letter mentions that 'the sale shall be subject to outcome of S.A.No.S8 of 2023 pending before the DRTJ, Hgderabad'. / I I 8 MB,J&GPK,,I W,P.No.1453O of 2025

15. On 16.03.2023, a Co-ordinate Bench order of this Court in a Writ Petition (W.P.No.7533 of 20231 filed by the Guarantor directed the Bank not to take further proceedings pursuant to the e-auction conducted on 14.O3.2O23. It rnay be recalled that the petitioner was declared as thc H1 bidder (highest bidder) in the very same auction. The Writ Petition was disposed of by an order dated 2O.O3.2O23 granting liberty to the petitioner therein/ guarantor herein to pursue the pcnding S.A.No.S8 of .2023 in the DRT and reiterated the direction on thc rcspondent No.2-Bank not to confirm the salc in favour of the auction purchaser in the auction conducted on t4.o3.2023.

16. The petitioner wrote to the Bank on 28.O3.2023 stating that the petitioncr was advised to make the balance payment of Rs.6,48,75,00O I - on or before 29.03.2023 but that the petitioner camc to know' through the tenants of the subject property that the owner of thc subjcct properly had obtained a Court order in W.P.No.7533 of 2023 on 2O.O3.2O23 prohibiting the Bank from transferring the property in the petitioner's name. The petitioner accordingly requested the Bank to keep the petitioner posted with regard to thc developments in relation to tJ:e property and also requested to refund a part of the amount or total amount already paid by the petitioner in the event if transfer of property takes time. I i \ \ 9 MB,J&GPK,J W.P-No.7453O of 2025 The petitioner also requested 15 days time to deposit the balance amount in case the legal issues were resolved.

17. The above clates make it clear that the petitione r rvas informed of the S.A. filect by the guarantor before the DRT by the Bank while informing the petitioner that the petitioner had been declared as the H 1 bidder in the auction. The lact of the pending S.A. was also mentioned by the Bank beforc the petitioner depositr:d 25o/o of the sale price in relation to the , subject propert-y. l'herefore, the petitioner cannot claim ignorance of the DRT pro<:cedings after

14.O3.2O23 i.e., before the petitioner was called upon to deposit 25olo of the sale consideration amount.

18. However, the crucial point is whether the knowledge of the pending S.A. filed by the respondent No.3/guarantor of the subject property as on the date of the petitioner being called rrl)on to deposit 25o/o of the sale price, would amount to sufficient disclosure by the Bank for enforcing its rights under Rule 9 of The Set urity Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2OO2('the 20O2 Rules).

19. We are constrained to disagree with the contention of the Bank by the reason of the subsequent events which arc as follows (0 The Writ Petition filed by the guarantor i.e.W.P.No.7533 of 2023 on 16.O3.2023 and i \ \ MB,J&GPK,J W.P.No.14530 ol2025 ) ) (ii) The two orders passed by a Co-ordinate Bench dated I 6. 03. 2023 and 20.03.2023, respectively. 20- The above Writ Petition was filcd by the respondent No.3/guarantor for setting aside the sale Notice dated

24.02.2023 and the e-auction dated i4.O3.2023 along with all furthe r proceedings pursuant to them along with a direction on Bank not to conduct any further proceeding with respect to subject property until final disposal of S.A. The prayer in LA.No.2 ol 2023 is for a direction on the Bank not to confirm the sale or issue a registered sale certificate pursuant to the e-auction held on 14.03.2023 with respect to the subject propcrty. The prayer in I.A. No.1 ol- 2C23 '"vas for the Bank not to take any further action under SARFAESI Act pending disposal of W.P.No.7533 of 2023. On 16.O3.3023, the Co- ordinate Bench directed the Bank not to take further proceedings pursuant to the auction conducted on

14.03.2023. The Writ Petition was disposed of on 2O.O3.2O23 upon Co-ordinate Bench noting several facts which would be relevant for the present proceedings: (i) The Court did not appreciate the stand of the Bank. I I \ \ 11 MB,J&GPK,J w.P.No.1453O of 2O25 (ii)Thc respondent No.3/guaraltor sought for a comprehensive relief before the DRT in S.A.No.SS of 2023 challenging not only the e-auction notice of

05.12.2022, sale notice dated 04 .O2.2o23 but also the physical possession of the property ancl notice issued by the Advocate-Commissioner along with all further proceedings initiated by the Bank in respect of the subject property. (iii) The DRT pa'ssed an interlocutory ordcr staying further proceedings except conducting auction subject to the petitioner therein/ guarantor herein depositing the amount as directed by the DRT. As directed, the petitioner therein/ guarantor hcrein deposited Rs. 1 crore on 1O.03.2O23 and Lhe Bank realized this amount. (iv) Hence, the Bank could not have gone for a fresh auction (the auction conducted on 14 .O3.2023 whereby the petitioner in the present Writ Petition was declared as the highest bidder). 2l . The Co-ordinate Bench accordingly disposed of the Writ Petition reiterating their restraint on the Bank to stay all further proceedings by not permitting the Bank to confirm sale at such a stage and not to confirm the sale in favour of the auction purchaser / t2 MB,J&GPK,J W.P.t{o.14530 oJ 2O25 \ ) in the auction conducted on 14.O3.2023 The auction purchaser is the petitioner in the present Writ Petition.

22. Therefore, on and from 20.03.2023, the rcspondent-Bank was under a restraint ordcr passed by the High Court with regard to confirming the sale in favour of the petitioner in the present proceedings. Admittedly, the respondent-Bank did not bring this fact to the notice of the petitioner by way of a written communication. We hava not been shown any letter or e-mail reflecting any communication from the Bank to the petitioner with regard to the order passed by the High Court on 2O.O3.2O23. Tne only communication by the respondent-Bank which has been placed are of 18.O4.2023, 2 1.O4.2023. 3 1 ji'.2O2S and 1 3.O6.2023 whereby it is clear that the Bank extendcd the time by one month i.e., from

28.O3.2023 to 28.O4.2023 for payment of the balance 7 5o/o of the sale price.

23. The failure on the part of the Bank to make lull disclosure of the Court order to the petitioner assumes importance since the Bank proceeded to demand the balance 757o consideration price from the petitioner despite its obligation to keep the petitioner informed of the restraint order. In fact, the petitioner's letter to the Bank on 2a.O3.2O23 informing the latter of the Court order in W.P.No.7533 of 2023 did not elicit an unequivocal reply from the Bank in terms of I I \ I t3 MB,J&GPK,J w.P.No.1453O of 2O25 the restraint. This is of utmost importance since the Co-ordinate Bench in Para IO by the order dated 2O.03.2023 clearlv directed that " the respondent-Bank shall not confirm the sale in.fauour of the auction purchaser in tle auction conducted on 14.O3.2O23..."

24. [t was hr:nce the bounden duty of the Bank to come clean (to the petitioner) in respect of the very same property lor which the petitioner had already parted with 25o/o of the sale price .

25. The argument made on behalf of the Bank with regard to the DRT proceedings being in relation to the previous e-auction notices dated O5.12.2022 and 04.O2.2023, as opposed to the later e-auction notice dated 24 .O2 .2023, is of. 4g consequence since the later notice resulted in the auction of 14.03.2023. declaring the petitioner as the (highest bidder) H I bidder was in respect of the sutrject property. Consequentiallv, the contention that the Bank insisted upon the balance 7 5o/o by reason of the auction being free of any Court orders is completely misplaced and incorrect. The order of the Co-ordinate Bench dated 20.O3.2023 clearly mentions the auction dated

14.03.2023 ancl the prohibition on the Bank to confirm the sale in favour of the auction purchaser, who is the writ petitioner in the lnstant case. I t4 MB,J&GPK,J w.P.No.14530 of 2O25 ) )

26. The stand of the Bank would show that the Bank sought to enrich itself both from the petitioner as well as the guarantor. While insisting upon the balancc salc price from the pe titioner/ auction purchaser, the Bank also participated in the DRT proccedings where the guarantor was directed to make payments to the Bank for stay of the auction. This duality reeks of unjust enrichment at the expense of the petitioner/auction purchaser being kept in the dark at the relevant point of time. The conduct of the Bank u,as highlighted by the Co-ordinate Bench in the order dated 2O.O3.2023 to the extent of the Bank calling for the sccond e auction when thc guarantor had already challenged the e-auction Notice with regard to the first auction.

27. We thus deprecate the conduct of the Bank - not oniy for the unjust enrichment - but also for the lack ol probity and transparency on its part in failing to make full disclosure of thc material facts to the petitioner particularly Court orders passed in W.P.No.7533 of

28. The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 were framed for the purpose of providing for specific procedures and timelines for enforcement of security interest as outlined in The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 ( SARFAESI Lct, 2OO2). Rule 9 ( I ) requires notice t I I \ l5 MB,J&GPK,J w.P.No.14530 of 2025 of thc sale of immovable property to be given to the borrower within specified timeframes after public notice of such sale. Rule 9(2) provides lor conf-rrmation of sale of the immovable properly in favour of the highest bidder subject to confirmation by the secured creditor and subject to the amount offered in relation to' the reserve price. The Rule further provides that the Authorised Officer can proceed with the sale rrvhen the highest bid is below the reserved price subject to the written consent of both the borrower as well as the secured creditor.

29. Rules 9(3) and 9(a) deal with the payment process to be follou,ed by the purchaser. Rule 9(3) provides that upon the confirmation of the sale, the successful purchaser must immediately make a deposit of 25o/o of the sale .price inclusive of the earnest mone_u- deposited, if any, to the Authorized Offi<:er. Rule 9(4) stipulates that the balance amount shall be paid to the authorized officcr on or before the 15ft day of confirmation of sale or rvithin such extended period as may be agreed between the purchaser and the secured creditor in writing, but not beyond three months.

30. Rule 9(5) provides that in case of default of paymenl within the period mentioned in sub-rule (4), the deposit shall be forfeited by the secured creditor and the property shall be resold. The defaulting purchaser shall also forfeit all claims to the property or to any part of ! 16 MB,J&GPK,J W.P.Ilo.1453O ol2O25 r) ) the sum for which it may be subsequently sold. Rule 9(6) requires issue of a certificate of sale of the immovable property in favour of the purchaser in the statutory format on confirmation of sale and on full payment being made for the sale.

31. The sequence of the sub-rules under Rule 9 of the 20O2 Rulcs proceeds on the basis of a clean sale by the secured creditor in favour of a purchaser pursuant to an e-auction. Rule 9 presumes unimpeachable conduct on the part of the secured creditor which would include full disclosure to the purchaser/ highest bidder. [n other words, Rule 9 only takes into account compliance in terms of making payment by the purchaser for the secured asset within the required time frames. Therefore, iiule 9 envisages a perfect factual state of affairs and not a situation wherc the secured creditor is itsclf at fault for not rnaking the required disclosure to the purchaser of any pending Court orders. Hence, once the secured creditor/Bank fa-lters on its obligation of full disclosure, it cannot use Rule 9(5) as a shield for payment of the balance 7 5o/o of the sale price, against the purchaser.

32. The facts of the present case indicate that the Bank was under an unequivocal restraint from confirming the sale in favour of the writ petitioner/auction purchaser. Thus, the Bank's reliance on the statutory rigour of Rule 9(5) is completely undermined by its own I t I \ 17 MB,J&GPK,J W.P.No,1453O of 2O25 conduct. We are hence of the view that Rule 9(5) of the 2002 Rules would not comc to the aid of the Bank.

33. We also cannot accept the Bank's contention that the petitioncr has an alternative efficacious remedy under Thc Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security lnterest Act,2OO2. It is well settled that a party can approach the Writ Court on certain exceptions including breach of the principies of natural justice. In the present case, the pelitioner being kcpt in the dark of the orders passed by the High Court r.r,ould anrolurt to such an exception since any act of deliberatc non-disclosurc would deprive the other party to effectively deal with the information suppressed. Hence, the Writ Petition is maintainablc.

34. However, since the petitioner was made aware of the pending S.A. in DRT-I even before deposit of 25%o of the sale price, the petitioner is disentitled from compelling the Bank to receive the balance 7 5o/o of rhe consideration price.

35. The cases cited on behalf of the parties should be placed in the contexl of t he above discussion. ! I 18 MB,J&GPK,J w,P,No.14530 oJ 2O25

36. Mohd.. Shariq u. Punjab National Bank and otherst, dealt with a situation similar to the present case where the Supreme Court noted that the highest bidder/appeliant before the Supreme Court had come with a bona fde defense and that he was not informed of substantive proceedings pending before the DRT institutcd at the instance of the borrower on the date of thc auction being held or day thereafter. The Supreme Court accordingly directed the respondent Bank to return the amount of Rs.50.25 lakhs to the appellant deposited with reference to the auction notice u'ithin a pcriod of two months failing which it carries a 127o intcrest pcr annum until the date of it being made over to the appellant. 37 . In Mr. Mandaua Kristuto Chaitanya u. Uco Bank, Asset Managanent BrancLP, the High Court notcd thc duty casl upon the secured creditor to undertake due diligence at least at the stage of putting the secured asset to sale, so that the bidders in the auction can be assured that the Bank has taken necessary measures in this regard and participate in the auction sale. A similar situation also arose in Lincoln Education Aco.demy u. Union Bank of Indias, where a Single Bench of the Calcutta High Court appreciated the predicament of the petitioner/auction purchaser in having to put in 257o towards sale price where the properfy was rnired in litigation. The Court also '(zoz: ) ro scc :ar lzors) : qLo zoe (os) 32023 SCC OnLine Cal 2338 I I \ 19 MB,J&GPK,J w.P.No.1453O of 2O25 mentioned thar the reluctance of the petitioner to pa)' balance 75% and instead wanting 25% back was understandable.

38. Authorise'd Officer, State Bank of India u. C. Natarajana, cited on behalf of thr-' guarantor, is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the auction purchaser's first request for extension of time to put in the balance amount was granted by the secured creditor. However, before expiry of the extended period for payment, the auction purchaser again requestcd time citing pendency of proceedings at the instance of borrou,er before the DRT. The request rvas rejected by the Bank in vieu' of thcrc not being any order of stay. The order of forfeiture was passed bv the Authorised Officer in terms of Rule 9(5) of the 2OO2 Rules since the auction purchaser failed to deposit the amolrnt and thc time extendeci through mutual agreement elapsed. ln any event, the Supreme Court agreed with the applicability of Rule 9(5) of the 2O02 Rules on the justification that the purpose of the Rule was to instill a sense of discipline in t}le intending purchaser who participates in the auction-saie process and also to avoid deceptive manipulation of prices at the instance of unscrupulous borrowers. olzoza) z scc azt 20 MB,J&GPK,J w.P.No.1453O of 2O25

39. Aganua.l Trtzcom Put. Ltd. V. Punjab National Bank 5 rvas concerned with the issue as to whether a secured creditor can forfeit the deposit made by the auction purchaser as a part of thc measures initiated under section i 3(4) oi the SARFAESI Act. Thc Supreme Court stated that the action of the secured creditor in lorfeiting the deposit made 6y the auction purchaser is part of measures taken by a secured creditor under section 13(a) of the SARFAESI Act.

40. As stated above, the cases cited on behalf of the parties must be placed within the factual conspectus of the present u'rit petition wl-rere the petitioner/auction purchaser was admittedly not inlormed of the orders passed by the High Court on 16.03.2-023 and 2O.O3.2O23. In this regard, tirc reSpondent-Bank does not have any explanation to offer in its defense. The Bank certainly cannot reap a double beneht from the guarantor as well as the auction purchaser by keeping the latter uninformed and ignorant of the subsequent developments in the subject property. 4 | . We hence deem it lit to allow the Writ Petition to thc extent of directing the Bank to refund/return Rs.2,16,25,000/ - deposited by the petitioner towards 25%o of the sale consideration pursuant to the e-auction conducted. on 14.O3.2O23. The proceedings initiated by the respondent No.3/guarantor before the DRT and thereafter in the I I lzors) r scc ezo 2l TfrB,J&CPK,J w.P.No.14530 of 2O25 High Court art: sulficient grounds lor disallowing the primary relief sought by the petitioner i.e., for directing the Bank to receive the balance 7 5o/o <tf the sale consideration or to execute a registered sale certificate in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property.

42. W.P.No. 14530 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is thus disposed of in terms of the above.

43. The respondent No.2 Bank shall return the amount to the petitioncr within ibur weeks from the date of this order. lnterim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. ,TRUE COPY// Sd/.M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR e SECTION OFFICER I One fair copy to the HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA (For His Lordship's Kind Perusal) AND I I One fair,:opy to the HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR (For His Lordship's Kind Perusal) To Delhi 1 10001.

1. The Principal Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, North block New

2. The Chir:f N4anager and Authorized Officer, Union Bank of lndia, Stressed Asset Management Branch, Hyderabad, 3rd Floor, Andhra Bank Building, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad 500095.

3. 11 L.R. Copies. 4. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

5. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

6. One CC to Ms. ZAINAB KHAN, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI K.KRISHNA SHRAWAN, Advocate IOPUC] 8. One CC to Ms. V.DYUMANI, Advocate (OPUC) 9. One CC to SRI K.ARVIND KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF lNDlA, Advocate (OPUC) I SA

10.Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:1 411012025 tlE STA I K C) C) 18 N0I 2S ,." , I I 'ti;% \pn*o* .4 -6 * ORDER WP.No.14530 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. @@ \ \ \